Monsanto at UVM

University of Vermont (well known as the University of Monsanto), has
been home to much of the rBGH research and investigation,
along with other genetic engineering research, resulting in products which
will eventually end up in our food. UVM no longer invests in Monsanto,
due to activist pressure, and now alternately invests in diversified
mutual funds.

Quotes from Web Articles

In 1991, a researcher at the University of Vermont, where
Monsanto was spending nearly half a million dollars to fund test trials of
rBGH, leaked information about severe health problems affecting
rBGH-treated cows, including mastitis and deformed births. The scientist
heading the research had already made numerous public statements to state
lawmakers and the press and released a preliminary report indicating that
rBGH-treated cows suffered no abnormal rates of health problems compared
with untreated cows. The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)
investigated. During the investigation, the FDA stalled in providing the
GAO with original Monsanto test data. and the GAO was unable to obtain
critical data from the University and Monsanto. The GAO terminated its
investigation, concerned that Monsanto had had time to manipulate the
questionable data and that any further investigation would be fruitless.
In an effort to dissipate public concern, University of Vermont scientists
finally released information showing rBGH's negative effect on cow health,
years after the findings had been made.

In 1990, when FDA approval of rBGH appeared imminent, a
veterinary pathologist at the University of Vermont's agricultural
research facility released previously suppressed data to two state
legislators documenting significantly increased rates of udder infection
in cows that had been injected with the then-experimental Monsanto
hormone, as well as an unusual incidence of severely deforming birth
defects in offspring of rBGH-treated cows. An independent review of the
University data by a regional farm advocacy group documented additional
cow health problems associated with rBGH, including high incidences of
foot and leg injuries, metabolic and reproductive difficulties and uterine
infections. The U.S. Congress' General Accounting Office (GAO) attempted
an inquiry into the case, but was unable to obtain the necessary records
from Monsanto and the University to carry out its investigation,
particularly with respect to suspected teratogenic and embryotoxic
effects. The GAO auditors concluded that cows injected with rBGH had
mastitis (udder infection) rates one third higher than untreated cows, and
recommended further research on the risk of elevated antibiotic levels in
milk produced using rBGH.

Another kink in the approval process of rBGH occurred in 1991
at the University of Vermont, where Monsanto was funding test trials of
rBGH. A researcher leaked information about increased mastitis and birth
defects among rBGH-treated cows after the project's head scientist had
made public statements to state lawmakers and the press and released a
preliminary report that rBGH-treated cows were as healthy as untreated
cows, The Ecologist reports.

Other Internet Resources

Revolving
Doors: Monsanto and the Regulators - Article by Jennifer Ferrara,
not printed in "The Ecologist", proving that
corporations can influence our media without owning them, but just by
fronting a threatening legal team.